Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister agree that, although many charities, citizens advice bureaux and faith-based organisations do excellent work in trying to get information to tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK about the benefits to which they are entitled, there is still a hard core of people to whom the information appears not to reach? Does he also agree that we need to be much more innovative and dynamic in trying to reach those communities to ensure that they get what they are entitled to?

Liam Byrne: That is precisely the sort of thing that the Government would like to flourish. For that reason, the Department of Health has set aside £100 million to invest in social enterprises. It sounds as through the organisation that the hon. Gentleman highlights is exactly the sort of enterprise about which the Department of Health would like to hear more. The fund is administered by Futurebuilders, and that would, therefore, be the first port of call for the hon. Gentleman.

Tom Watson: I have known my hon. Friend for longer than nearly any other MP, and his former agent, Jack Fleming, from the time of the former Labour Government of the 1970s, would have been proud of my hon. Friend's work to improve the machinery of government. Sometimes, I have to say that it seems that we have been discussing the ombudsman for that long as well. We know that 134 MPs said that they wanted to remove the MP filter, but I cannot honestly say to my hon. Friend that that is the settled will of the House. To be honest with him, I would also have to say that there is no settled view in government either, but I undertake to take soundings from Members again to ensure that their views are properly reflected when we come to make our decision.

Gordon Brown: Many measures in the Bill are supported unanimously on all sides of the House, and the fact is that we have to get new investment into Royal Mail. That is why we have invited outside parties to express their interest.

Harriet Harman: May I strongly identify myself with the comments of tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has led today? I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to have the opportunity to pay tribute to you. As Leader of the House, I shall make sure that an occasion is arranged before you leave the Chair so that we can all pay tribute to your generous and courteous chairing of this House of Commons.
	With permission, Mr. Speaker, and following on from your statement to the House yesterday, I should like to make a statement on the decisions made yesterday at the meeting of the Members Estimate Committee that you convened with the Prime Minister, the party leaders and the Chair of the Committee on Members' Allowances, and on the Prime Minister's proposals for a new parliamentary standards authority.
	First, I want to set out how we are dealing with the past. At the meeting last night, we agreed a process, proposed by the Committee on Members' Allowances, that will reassess Members' claims over the past four years and identify those claims that should not have been made and should not have been paid out because they were outwith the rules. We also agreed to make arrangements for repayment. The public are entitled to see a process of reparation and Members are entitled to know that this will be orderly and fair.
	Secondly, I want to set out the immediate steps that will be taken. The House has already voted to ensure that the threshold for receipts has gone down from £25 to zero and to introduce full-scope audit under the National Audit Office. But, in addition, the MEC meeting last night agreed to an immediate ban on claims for furniture, a cap on interest payments for accommodation at the equivalent per year of £1,250 per month and a restriction on any changes to designation of main and second homes. The meeting also agreed that Members who are married or living together as partners should be prevented from claiming more than one second home allowance.
	I understand that the MEC will meet later today to determine detailed changes to the Green Book to put into practice the principles on which the party leaders and the MEC reached clear agreement last night. That should give immediate reassurance to Members of this House and to the public, but, in order fully to restore public trust and confidence, we need more than reparation and reassurance: we need renewal, and to put in place a new system on a new footing.
	The House has already voted, on 30 April, to endorse the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will come forward with its recommendations later this year. Once again, I want to place on record my thanks to Sir Christopher Kelly and his committee for their work.
	At the MEC meeting last night, all parties agreed to the Prime Minister's proposal that the keystone for any reform must be to switch from self-regulation to independent external regulation. We agreed that we should end the gentlemen's club approach that means that we set and enforce our own rules, and instead bring forward proposals for a new parliamentary standards authority.
	The proposal on which we seek to consult would see Parliament legislate to delegate specific responsibilities to a new, independent parliamentary standards authority, which would revise and update the codes of practice for Members of this House, investigate complaints where a Member of this House is alleged to have breached the code of conduct, take forward the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on allowances and take responsibility for authorising claims for payment under the new allowance system. It would be able not only to disallow claims, but to require payback of claims wrongly paid out and to impose financial penalties.
	It is clearly appropriate that the new body should also take responsibility for such issues in the Lords, including administering and regulating the systems for peers' allowances, overseeing the code governing peers' conduct and the Register of Lords' Interests, ensuring high standards of propriety and financial conduct, investigating alleged abuses of the system and recommending any necessary sanctions.
	We in this House recognise that the principle of self-regulation operates differently in the House of Lords. It is clear that extensive work and consultation will be necessary to ensure the agreement of the House of Lords to the effective transfer of responsibilities to the new body.
	The new authority would also maintain the register of Members' financial interests in this House and deal with the disclosure of second incomes. Discipline issues that might require sanctions such as suspension from the House, which would have a bearing on Members' ability to perform their work, would remain a matter for the whole House through the Standards and Privileges Committee. Only the electorate, or those who are themselves democratically elected, should be able to prevent a Member from doing their work in this House.
	We have set in place the actions for reparation and reassurance. For renewal for the future, we look forward to Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals, and we further propose that the House move from a system of self-regulation to a system of statutory regulation. Although I know that it is hard to get a hearing on this subject now, as Leader of the House I will continue to argue, both inside and outside the House, that most honourable Members are precisely that: they are people who come into Parliament as a matter of public service, and are hard-working, decent and honest. However, we must recognise that, even before the allowance revelations, there was a problem of public disengagement and public cynicism, and a public sense of distance from Parliament.
	We must now seize the opportunity to promote a debate that will see proposals to change and strengthen our democracy move from the margins to centre stage, where they ought rightly to be. Parliament and politics are important precisely because there are deeply held, different views about public policy, but there is consensus among all parties that we need to put the reputation of Parliament above reproach, and we will. I commend the statement to the House.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. May I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for convening yesterday's meeting with all the party leaders? Such a meeting could have taken place weeks ago without the need for your involvement, but the House and those who elect us will be grateful for the way in which you made it happen.
	Following the uproar of the past couple of weeks, we have at last taken concrete steps to address some of the unacceptable elements of an allowances system for Members that has attracted universal condemnation. Last night, we learned from you, Mr. Speaker, of the main points that were decided, and they go a long way to addressing the issues that were crying out for attention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week outlined a clear list of what he wanted to see for all of us, which he has insisted on for his party. Yesterday's announcement was in many ways the same as that list.
	We will have, straight away, a strict regime to ban the flipping of homes just to exploit the allowances available. Capital gains tax cannot be evaded. A declaration about where one's home is will have to be open and clear. People will not be allowed to claim for plasma TVs or furniture, and there will be an annual cap on how much can be claimed for mortgage interest or rent. Will the Leader of the House confirm when she expects those revised rules to be up and running?
	The very fact that the proposals were endorsed by all parties, and the fact that the meeting took clear, practical action, should be welcomed by all who have so disapproved of the system under which we have been working. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that it is the Government's continuing wish to proceed in everything that we are going to do in a genuinely cross-party way?
	In the meantime, Sir Christopher Kelly and his committee are working on recommendations for a long-term solution to the pay and conditions of MPs. In the middle of what can only be described as the most serious and revolutionary shift in popular opinion and in the reputation of Parliament in our lifetime, his committee is required to stand back from the fray and set out how a modern Parliament should look, and how it and its Members should be resourced. This is no easy task, and whatever people think of Parliament, I hope they will fully respect the integrity of his committee's efforts and show proper respect for his conclusions. May I ask, therefore, when the Leader of the House thinks the committee will eventually report?
	One massive structural shift that we in this Parliament must embrace if it is not to sink further in the eyes of voters is to relinquish the right to determine how we reward ourselves. We are here to legislate, to scrutinise, to discuss and to govern. We are here to represent the interests of our constituents, not to serve our own. For a long time, the Conservative party's policy has been to give up setting our own pay and allowances and to give that power to an outside body. Some sort of outside structure is long overdue. We also want to cut the cost of politics. Where in the reforms does the right hon. and learned Lady believe that that might yet be achieved?
	Behind all this is the need for massive parliamentary reform to bring this institution up to the requirements of the 21st century. May I therefore offer the co-operation of the official Opposition in proceeding constructively and responsibly to try to sort this near constitutional crisis thoroughly and as soon as possible?

Stuart Bell: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. I have been a member of the House of Commons Commission for 10 years, nine of them under your stewardship, Mr. Speaker. It was never you who was opposed to reform; the House of Commons showed total incapacity to grasp the nettle of accepting that reform was needed—never more so than on 3 July last year, when proposals that might well have avoided many of today's scandals were rejected by the collective will of the House.
	That, however, is the past. The future is absolutely in independent regulation, and again I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. I also welcome the fact that it extends to the House of Lords. I break tradition by calling it that rather than "the other place". That might be a welcome change in our own proceedings.
	In the past, the House of Lords has been jealous of its own prerogatives and has avoided integration with this House. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to be sure that the broad bipartisan support here will be reflected in the House of Lords and that that House will not be an impediment to the kind of changes that we seek.

Eleanor Laing: I welcome today's statement. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that if it is really our intention to have here a legislature that is broadly reflective of the people whom we seek to represent, it must be made clear and taken into consideration that this is not a gentleman's club, and that many Members have to balance their parliamentary and constituency duties with their family duties? That applies not only to those of us who are mothers of small children but to those with other family duties.
	It has been very upsetting to read in the press the great idea that we could all live in barracks in London. I ask the House to take into consideration where we will put our children and when we will have time to see them. If we want to have a legislature that really reflects the people, it must reflect families. The financial arrangements must therefore reflect the need for some of us to undertake family duties as well as parliamentary and constituency duties.

Appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General

Jeremy Browne: It is indicative of the significance of the position of Comptroller and Auditor General that the Prime Minister himself moved the motion on the appointment of Mr. Morse. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the nerveless performance that he gave a few minutes ago.
	The post of Comptroller and Auditor General is a highly significant one, particularly at this time, when the Government have a public sector deficit of £175 billion this year, falling to £173 billion next year—according to their projections. The deficit represents more than 10 per cent. of gross domestic product, so it is essential that we achieve value for money in public spending. That is clearly a task that Mr. Morse is well equipped to contribute to.
	A number of concerns have been expressed, not about Mr. Morse's individual qualifications and suitability but about the role more generally. There is a potential for conflict between the positions of the chairman, Sir Andrew Likierman, and of Mr. Morse. I am talking not about them as individuals but about the two roles, which have the potential to overlap. There are issues about the usefulness of the hearing processes, when they do not contribute directly to a recommendation or otherwise on the suitability of an applicant. There is also an issue about the balance between finding value for money and the financial audit work undertaken by the NAO. Mr. Morse will of course have some significant issues in his in-tray, not least the vexed question whether private finance initiatives will contribute to the overall public debt of the country.

Angela Eagle: I am a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and I have had the privilege of occasionally sitting in on some hearings—not all 450—from the Government side. I can certainly confirm that when I was a fully fledged and regularly attending member under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we did not have any votes. I believe that the PAC continues to do a vital job, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification in response to some of the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Taunton.
	The Government are committed to bringing forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Public Accounts Commission on NAO corporate governance and will do so as soon as the legislative timetable allows.
	I want to welcome the appointment of Mr. Morse as Comptroller and Auditor General. As the Prime Minister said, Mr. Morse has had a distinguished career in the private sector and is currently the Ministry of Defence's commercial director. His appointment brings a number of "firsts". He will be the first Comptroller and Auditor General to have private sector experience, which will prove invaluable to the National Audit Office. He will be the first chartered accountant, the first to be appointed through open competition and the first to be subject to a pre-appointment hearing. He is also the first to agree to be appointed for a limited term.

Iain Wright: As I am sure my hon. Friend will acknowledge, that will depend on the nature of the national policy statement involved. It may well be that the price of carbon is not particularly relevant. When considering this matter, the House has been clear about the need for a flexible approach in that regard.
	The Planning Act, particularly section 9, provides for parliamentary scrutiny of a proposed national policy statement before it can be designated. Timing, in the general sense, is very important. The Government envisage that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be established and able to start giving advice to potential applicants this autumn, and will be ready to begin receiving applications from the first half of 2010. We need to put the right procedures in place now, so that they are ready for the first statements, which are scheduled for publication for consultation and laying before Parliament later this year. It is important for parliamentary scrutiny of proposals for NPSs to be efficient and timely. Any delay, or ineffective arrangements, will pose the risk of disruption to a demanding timetable of planning reform for major infrastructure.
	To ensure that the process of parliamentary scrutiny is effective and efficient, the Minister for Local Government and the Leader of the House began discussions with the Chairmen of the relevant Select Committees when the Planning Bill was going through the House. Discussions have been followed by further discussions between the Deputy Leader of the House—who I am pleased to see is present—and the Chairmen of Select Committees in recent weeks. The Liaison Committee also considered this matter in October last year, and I have found its report incisive and illuminating.
	I pay tribute to the hard work undertaken by my colleagues and others, which has strengthened the proposed process. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made constructive and positive comments, designed to ensure that Parliament scrutinises national policy statements properly and effectively.
	When the Planning Bill was first introduced, the Government suggested the establishment of a specific Select Committee to consider national policy statements, whose members might be drawn from the membership of relevant departmental Committees. However, it was made clear during the passage of the Bill that the wish of the House was that it should be for the House itself to decide what procedures were appropriate for each specific NPS. We recognise that that flexibility is vital.
	As I said a moment ago, the Liaison Committee also directly considered the matter of parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs, and provided helpful and reasonable suggestions on how the process could operate and be improved. The Chair of theCommunities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—who I am pleased to see is also present—feared that the system as then suggested would exclude members of her Committee with responsibility for, and expertise in, matters of planning policy and local government. As one who appeared before the Committee this week to discuss planning policy statements—and I still bear the scars on my back from previous interrogations by it—I can personally vouch for my hon. Friend's wise words. Moreover, the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees directly concerned perceived the risk that a system in which ad hoc committees were drawn from existing Select Committees would disrupt those Committees' work.
	Together with the Chairs of the Select Committees, we developed the process that is proposed in the motion. Parliamentary examination of a national policy statement would take place through one of two routes: designation of a relevant departmental Select Committee to undertake the work, or the appointment of a national policy statement Select Committee. The decision on which option to take would be a matter not for the Government but for the Select Committees, via the Liaison Committee. Part A of the motion creates a new Standing Order setting out the governance and administrative arrangements for a new national policy statement Select Committee, including the number of members, what constitutes a quorum, the Committee's powers to take evidence and its ability to appoint specialist advisers.
	It may be helpful if I briefly describe what I expect scrutiny of a national policy statement to entail. As I have implied, the precise details would be a matter for the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee, but we envisage a process along the following lines. The relevant Secretary of State would lay the draft NPS, or draft amendment of an NPS, before Parliament and publish it for public consultation. At the same time, the Secretary of State would specify what is known as the "relevant period" during which consideration of the proposal would take place. We have agreed that this would need to be sufficient to encompass the period of public consultation plus additional time to allow for Committees of either House to report and for debates in this House and the other place to take place if required.

Iain Wright: No, I think that there needs to be discussion between the relevant Secretary of State, the relevant departmental Select Committees and the Liaison Committee. The point that I have been trying to make to the House is that this arrangement has to be a flexible as possible. We want to give appropriate time for Parliament to scrutinise these incredibly important planning statements. It is incredibly important that as we consider the future infrastructure of this country, in order to allow us to compete in the modern world, we have a public debate on, and parliamentary scrutiny of, what is necessary. We are trying to provide flexibility in the system, and the discussions that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and others have had with relevant Select Committee Chairs indicate that this flexibility has been provided and that the whole House can be reassured on that.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to detail the substance of the motion. He is right to say that these are significant and innovative matters. The test, of course, is whether they are adequate and achieve the overall objective—I am sorry to say that that is where he and I are likely to part company.
	I promise that I shall not do a re-run of the lengthy scrutiny—the Minister was right about that—in Committee of what became the Planning Act 2008. However, it is sensible to start from the proposition that we are dealing, as he said, with significant infrastructure projects of the highest degree. Something of national significance is almost in the definition "national policy statement". Against that background, it is hugely important that if such projects are to go ahead, there should, as he says, be a swift and effective system to consider them. On that much we have common ground, which is why the Conservatives are sympathetic towards some aspects of these measures. National policy statements have a real role to play as part of this regime.
	The Minister will know that we part company from him on the desirability of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, in its current form, being the vehicle to deal with this issue. Our reason for doing so is linked to our concern about the proposals in the motion, which is that precisely because of the significance of these projects, it is all the more important that there should be the maximum democratic accountability in the decision-making process and the maximum legitimacy if communities and other groups are being asked to make a sacrifice in the national interest.
	If that is to happen, as it sometimes does in the planning process, it is right and proper that people feel they have had a fair crack of the whip in putting their case before a decision is taken. If the matter is really of national significance, it is right that the ultimate decision should be taken in the Chamber of the House.
	There is, of course, merit in Select Committees looking at detailed matters, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) for referring to the discussions with the Quadripartite Committee, because that is one of the issues raised to which I shall return. Although I accept that there has been a degree of constructive discussion and movement from the Government's original proposals, none of the proposals in the motion meets our basic issue of principle: proposals of this kind should ultimately be signed of in a substantive vote following a debate on the Floor of this House. The mechanism by which we achieve that might vary, be it the report of a Joint Committee or a special national policy committee—that matters not. These proposals lack the means whereby every Member can participate in a debate and register their vote. That is the most important issue.

Daniel Rogerson: That is clearly a consideration, which is why we should look beyond the short to medium term and acknowledge that changes may occur. Some of the matters covered by national policy statements may become crucial issues of difference between parties and very important at any general election or referendum that might take place as the parliamentary process moves forward.
	How will the proposals contained in an NPS be scrutinised, and by whom? Will the House carry out that scrutiny and so have a say in what emerges, or will the process be led by the Government? The Minister for Local Government is on record as saying that the promotion of coherent policy is clearly a role for Government, but I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that the NPS is something of a hybrid. While one would expect the Government of the day to put forward a proposal, it is legitimate for individual hon. Members to want to be able to offer input about site-specific concerns that might have far reaching consequences for their constituents.
	In passing, I want to say that my party is not convinced that implementing a framework of national policy statements necessitates an Infrastructure Planning Commission. The Government have said that there is a clear distinction between democratic involvement in setting policy and the far more dispassionate and objective process of determining applications. I shall return to that later in my remarks, and for now merely note that the Government are on record as setting out that as their position.
	Let me move on to consider the arrangements in more detail. During the Minister's contribution, there was a debate, conducted through intervention, about the time factor. As I mentioned in my intervention on him, it is sensible that there should be a period of 40 days in which the right information can be put before the House. That will follow a Select Committee process that has been far more rigorous, in which the Select Committee will have had the opportunity to consider evidence in more detail.
	However, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about whether there is to be a minimum period over which the whole process takes place. I fear that it may call into question people's confidence in the process, if not its legitimacy, if the Secretary of State, who is ultimately the promoter of the policy, decides what the relevant period is. It would therefore help if there was a minimum period, or perhaps a range of time within which the House might expect consideration to take place. The relevant Secretary of State would determine a period within that range, as was appropriate, in consultation with the Liaison Committee and the Select Committee Chairs. That might help to raise confidence in the process.
	There is also the issue of the interaction between the time scale for scrutiny and the consultation process going on in the real world. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has said that it is keen that there should be a period, after the public consultation, when the Select Committee is still giving the matter consideration, so that whatever is fed forward gets through to the Select Committee. That is absolutely right, because it means that the Select Committee can feel confident that it has had access to as much information, and as many of the views of the public, as possible.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; he has put that on record, and I appreciate his intervention. We have had debates in public, including in the House today, about how the House and indeed the political process at all levels are viewed by the public. That is inevitably influenced by how members of the public come into contact with elected representatives, and the public's aspirations for their views to be put forward, listened to and dealt with. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave the very good example of the congestion charge as a case in which the public sometimes feel let down by the process. So we must have confidence that any consultation is genuine and as wide as possible, and we must have confidence that it leads to a proper process of scrutiny that allows Members of this House to engage with the process of setting a national policy statement; ultimately, they are the only elected representatives who will be able to do so.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised the issue of how non-expert witnesses may be supported, which is crucial. When looking at the resources that are made available to Select Committees, we must bear in mind, especially where there are site-specific concerns, that members of the public may be intimidated, however eloquent and well-informed they are about what is going on in their local community, by being called before a parliamentary Select Committee, alongside organisations that are represented by public affairs consultants and lobbyists. Those members of the public need to be given support, too, to ensure that the excellent points that they have to make are put in the best light possible, and explored as fully as they would wish. I hope that the Minister will say how that concern might be addressed.
	There is also a question to be asked about the policy background against which members of different Select Committees work. Where a Committee is drawn from the membership of different Select Committees, there should be a broad balance; for example, the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, has planning expertise. I have the honour to be on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee; it should have an equal voice, or at least an appropriately strong voice, on a Joint Committee, alongside Committees that have more expertise in dealing with industry and so on, so that we can ensure that there is a balance of views across the piece.
	Having expressed those reservations about the system, I point out that the Select Committee process is probably the best way that we have of proceeding. It is established, and Members are used to using it. There is expertise among the House authorities on how to support Select Committees, provide the information and ensure smooth proceedings. Despite my concerns about timing, and concerns that hon. Members have expressed about the work load, I think that the Select Committee process is the best way of proceeding.
	Nevertheless, there are deficiencies in the Government's motion. That is why I am pleased to see the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It gets to the heart of what we discussed while the Planning Bill was making progress in the House. We discussed it again afternoon. Ultimately, there needs to be a vote. There needs to be an opportunity for Members who have great concerns about an issue connected with a national policy statement to vote; they are elected on the same basis as those Members who serve on the relevant Select Committee. We all have equal legitimacy in this House. We are talking about issues that can affect all constituencies; indeed, they may well affect some constituencies considerably more than others. We may hear a little bit about that later. All Members should have a chance to have a final say. That is why I welcome the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will seek to press it to a Division. My colleagues and I certainly wish to support it.
	There is a great deal of work to be done. National policy statements, if handled properly, can make a significant contribution to ensuring that the planning process is more transparent and efficient, and is up to being challenged, as it should be, by the people out there. They may challenge its accuracy and ability to reflect the aspirations of the country as a whole, and the aspirations of local communities. If there are few points at which the democratic process is involved in the part of the planning system that we are discussing, and if decisions on individual applications are to be taken by appointed people, rather than elected people, we should remember, as the Minister for Local Government said in Committee, that it is when policy is set that the democratic voice must be heard. Ultimately, the only way that that can happen is if there is a vote in the House.

Jacqui Lait: It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Although I do not regard myself as a natural ally of his, on this legislation we have been at one, and on the Floor of the House we have regularly fought the battle to try to get a final democratic lock on national policy statements. I suppose that we should therefore congratulate ourselves on one thing—the fact that we were able to do battle on the Floor of the House.
	I agree that, following the events of the past few weeks and yesterday's statements, it is so important for the House to get back its democratic accountability and credibility. This is a great opportunity for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and give back to Parliament some of the legitimacy that they have taken away over the past few years. I was therefore delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and constituency neighbour, indicated that we would support the amendment and, if there were an opportunity, go further—although we will stick with what we have for now.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington couched the debate in stark terms. There is no disagreement in any part of the House about the need for the national policy statements. We must replace and renew our infrastructure, and it is important that we get on with that work. We have put forward ideas for getting on with it in a practical sense and more rapidly than the current system, but we have always accepted the idea of the national policy statements. We have always been against the Infrastructure Planning Commission, however, because it is fundamentally undemocratic and we want to return to Parliament and to Ministers the responsibility that the British public believe they have to make the final decisions on planning. The hon. Gentleman said that that is the mystique of the quasi-judicial process, and we understand that, but to the British public, the Minister is the person who is responsible for making decisions about airports, roads, harbours, waste facilities, nuclear power stations and wind farms. That is absolutely correct, and the Planning Act 2008 does tremendous harm to the idea of the democracy of the people, because it allows Ministers to pass over to an unelected quango the decision that the British people feel Ministers were elected to make.
	Again, it is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. As one who has sat on several Select Committees, I am deeply sceptical about the value of their work, and I apologise if there are people here who are wedded to the idea of them. However, I do not know whether I want the Whips to hear this, because I think that sitting on inquiries into the national policy statements would be a very interesting and worthwhile exercise. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has not made a note of that statement!
	The discussions on how the national policy statements will be examined started on the Floor of the House and continued subsequently. On the structure that has emerged, people think, "Let's start with it, and see how it grows and whether it works." It is a good, flexible structure, and I was pleased to hear from the Minister that there seems to be sufficient time both for the public and parliamentary consultations to meld together and for proper scrutiny. Although I understand the point that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West and her colleague the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, made about ensuring that there is sufficient time, I think that the time scale can be adhered to.
	However, one little quirk of the 40-day period that the House will have to scrutinise the Select Committee's report is that it leaves plenty of time for a substantive debate on the Floor of the House so that we can make a decision. If a Committee should come up with a recommendation that the Government like or dislike, quite apart from what any Member likes or dislikes, there will be an opportunity to thrash it out on the Floor of the House and vote on it. If we believe in democracy, we ought to recognise that the decision should be made in this Chamber; it should not be made by Ministers who are unaccountable because they have passed decision-making powers to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
	If, under the new system, a Committee report is debated in the House only because it is at odds with what the Minister or the national policy statement wants, what will happen? There may be no vote, but the House could be united against a national policy statement, such as a site-specific statement on a nuclear power station. This is beyond the bounds of common sense, but should there ever be a proposal for a nuclear power station in the London borough of Bromley, I imagine that people would be united in opposition.

Paul Truswell: I do not intend to detain the House for too long, because my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) admirably enumerated all the reasons why the House should support the amendment in his name and the names of colleagues such as me. Throughout discussion of the Planning Bill—or the Planning Act 2008, as it is now—I said that my starting point was to apply one test: how far did it maintain or improve the existing process in respect of my constituents, of me as their elected representative or of any other member of a community? My view is that the legislation dramatically failed that test.
	It would not be appropriate for me to rehearse that debate and I shall resist the temptation, as other Members have. However, there is a democratic deficit. The process that existed previously allowed the public not only to make a case at a public inquiry, but to subject the evidence to cross-examination; that is a fundamental democratic issue, and also one of fairness. There is now a major gap and chasm in the process. My hon. Friend has clearly defined why he tabled his amendment, and one of his reasons for doing so is to try to bridge that chasm.
	It has been said on a number of occasions in this debate that national policy statements will be a crucial framework. It is crucial, therefore, that we get them right. Once they are agreed, the die will be cast; they will be the tram lines on which public inquiries and the Infrastructure Planning Commission will run. We know from experience that communities often disagree with specific proposals put forward by developers, and that many of the protests that our constituents make will be overridden by reference to the existing national policy statement that governs the particular planning application or major infrastructure proposal under discussion. That is why we have to get NPSs absolutely right.
	I had written down the fact that the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is recommending is a democratic backstop; he got there first in using that phrase, but I reiterate it. If our constituents, wherever they live, feel individually or collectively that they have been stripped of a right that currently exists, they will look to us, as their elected representatives, to perform that role of backstop, which is why the amendment is so crucial.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was right to say that the whole process has opened itself up to judicial review, which will clearly flow from one or more of the documents and applications that come before us. All the arguments have been made in that respect. I think that we will get not only judicial review but more direct action, because the idea that legitimacy is being stripped out of the process will aggravate people to such a great extent.
	I do not intend to reiterate the arguments that have been made; I wanted only briefly to reinforce what has been said by so many Members, but particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hope that even at this late stage, we will be able to register the view of this House that we ultimately need a substantive vote to legitimise the process, having taken so much legitimacy out of it.

John Howell: Like everyone else, I must begin my remarks by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing his amendment, which I hope that he will press to a vote.
	Anyone looking in on this debate and reading today's Order Paper could not avoid seeing the complexity of the motion that is before us. They would probably think that common sense had gone out of the window, because although the motion is complex, it entirely misses the point that what the planning system lacks is real democratic accountability. The Government have underestimated the extent of public anger and suspicion about the planning process and the public's lack of trust in the planning process and in those who take planning decisions. In all the years that I have been involved in planning matters, I cannot recall a time when the planning system has been so characterised by confrontation and all-pervading conspiracy theories because of the lack of transparency that occurs in relation to almost any major decision. It would be easy to characterise that as nimbyism, and many do, but that is so insulting to the people and communities who have genuine concerns to raise about large projects. The attitude of the public owes a lot to the lack of democratic accountability in the system at all levels.
	The Minister referred to the need for consultation during the process. I have to say to him that, in my experience, the Government's track record on consultation is shot to pieces. People do not trust the consultation process, and I would like to hear whether he has any more ideas about how he is going to put trust back into it. Is it to be based around the sort of consultation that we have seen for some of the regional spatial strategies? In my area, the south-east plan did not go out of its way to involve ordinary people. It involved the great and the good—even some of the great and the good in the county councils and district councils—but it failed to have any resonance at all with ordinary people on the ground. That is why they are so angry. When those plans were published, they contained the very things that they had fought against. In many cases they raised their own money to do that, and not on nimby grounds but for good reasons.
	I am a great admirer of Select Committees. I know that I have not been here as long as many Members who are present in the Chamber, but I am on a Select Committee and enjoy its work very much. I particularly enjoy the opportunity that it provides to delve into matters in detail and question Ministers, officials and other experts at great length. However, that misses the point that what people want is the scrutiny and decision making in this House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, allows a constituent to come and ask us, "How did you vote on this particular issue?"
	The Floor of the House is a perfectly proper place for discussions on documents such as national policy statements, because they are not purely planning documents. The description of them in the White Paper, "Planning for a Sustainable Future," states that they will
	"provide a clear statement of policy and the nature of infrastructure development necessary to deliver our wider goals of improving people's quality of life, economic prosperity and protecting and enhancing the environment."
	There is a planning element in there, absolutely, but there is much more about economic development and the overall picture of development. It is perfectly proper that that should be debated on the Floor of the House and, in fact, I would feel upset if I did not have the opportunity to influence a decision on such a wide issue.
	For the reasons that have already been stated, I do not like the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It is one of the most spineless inventions that we have seen in the planning system. As I said in my earlier intervention, over the past few years the planning system has been deliberately moved towards being the delivery arm of Government policy. That is the right direction, because planning does not exist in an isolated world of its own. It is there to deliver whatever the policies of the Government are, and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the inconsistency that follows, which means that when it comes to contentious national projects, the Government want to hide behind a whole new structure that takes them out of the picture.
	The planning system that we have at the moment is one of the most highly fragmented that I have come across. Bits of planning decisions are taken here, bits there and bits in other places. There is little interaction in the system between national policy statements and the planning policy statements and guidance. I join my hon. Friends in welcoming some form of national policy statement for infrastructure projects, but the debate has moved on. There must now be a big argument about whether it is right for national policy statements to be stand-alone documents or whether they should be included in something much broader that establishes an overall policy framework for the country, priorities within that and the tools and means of delivering it. If the Minister wishes to have an example of how that might work, let me point out that whenever I talk to planning consultants, they start to go weepy-eyed and enthusiastic about what the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are doing to turn their planning systems around and to provide a structure in which things can be seen in the context of what those Governments want to achieve.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was absolutely right to highlight the risk of judicial review. The Campaign to Protect Rural England website has already listed the main reasons why one would be able to take something to a judicial review. Although the CPRE qualifies that with a statement that:
	"In general, the use of judicial review should be considered very much as a last resort as it is risky"—
	it might have added "expensive"—I submit that it would not put four detailed reasons on its website if it were not encouraging people to use them. So we already have a good example of how that would work.
	There is a good argument for accountability and debate in Parliament generally, rather than in a Select Committee alone, as the Government propose. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that, although the amendment does not go as far as we would like, it is a good step in the right direction, which I would be pleased to support.

Alan Whitehead: I do not intend to detain the House long, although I imagine that my comments will probably make me no friends whatever in any part of the House.
	As I intimated in an intervention, my difficulty in approaching the motion relates to the status of a national planning policy statement, which will clearly be a hybrid. It will be based partly on what regularly happens at the Dispatch Box when a Minister makes a statement on Government policy, takes questions and sits down, with no vote being taken. Such statements can be prayed in aid, one way or another, in a planning inquiry, even though they are not specifically related to it.
	On the other hand, the national planning policy statements that are envisaged will go substantially beyond the point at which they could be regarded simply as a Government statement—they will be much more substantial. In some ways, they will more closely resemble planning policy guidance statements, which also are not subject to a vote on the Floor of the House before they are completed, but which nevertheless go before planning inquiries and play a substantial part in determining the framework of the inquiry. Indeed, people on both sides of the inquiry will refer to parts of the guidance statement to support their case.
	I thoroughly support the scrutiny that now takes place. A good job was done in ensuring that, by the time the Planning Bill became an Act, procedures had been incorporated to enable such scrutiny. The motion reflects the follow-on from what emerged in the Planning Act 2008.
	There is a choice between the scrutiny being undertaken by either a Select Committee or a Committee set up by the Liaison Committee specifically for the purpose, but I feel that a preference should be expressed. One might say that a Select Committee would normally be asked to scrutinise a proposed document and that, exceptionally, a Committee might be set up for the purpose. At the moment, there seems to be an either/or that is neutral on which option is preferred. Perhaps we should suggest a preference.
	Should a Select Committee discuss a planning statement? Because it is a statement, it is extremely unlikely that the Committee would simply say, "No, we don't like the apparent policy behind the statement, so we will not endorse it in any way, shape or form", in order to bring it back to the House. Instead, it would discuss the detail, as in a Bill Committee, and report its conclusions. It might suggest a number of changes to the detail, but it is extremely unlikely—to the point of its not happening—that a Select Committee would fundamentally disagree with the concept behind it.
	I therefore have some difficulty with the amendment, which appears to suggest that a member of a Committee could come before the House and say, "No, we don't like the whole idea of the policy", and we would have to debate that and vote.
	The question whether a policy is liked seems to go one stage further back. I would value the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on what is meant by the relevant provision in the 2008 Act. Sections 9(4) and (5) state that if
	"either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal...The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State's response to the resolution or recommendations."
	However, if either House of Parliament passed a policy resolution on the proposal, it would not be logical for the Secretary of State simply to lay a statement responding to the resolution, because the resolution would essentially override what the Secretary of State might say about the policy principle behind the planning document being considered by the Select Committee.
	Let me provide an example. I support in principle the National Planning Commission dealing with large infrastructure projects and nationally significant planning proposals. I do so partly because I would like a number of issues relating to the development of renewable and sustainable energy to be dealt with speedily and effectively—with proper consultation and discussion, but without the immense delays that we sometimes encounter. I also accept, however, that the same process could speed up development of nuclear power, which I think is a bad idea for this country's energy policy.
	We should not forget that the purpose of national policy statements is to inform the considerations of the National Planning Commission. If, before the proposals in either of the two examples I have given had reached the point of being scrutinised by a Select Committee or gone through the Infrastructure Planning Commission's planning inquiry process, the House considered a motion stating that either nuclear power or large-scale offshore wind was a bad idea, that would presumably trump or prevent Select Committee discussion of any statement. Indeed, that consideration is more important than requiring the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement setting out his response to the resolution or recommendations.
	The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament a statement on the recommendations of a Select Committee, but if he was laying a response to a resolution that overrode the policy behind the statement, it would be insufficient and inappropriate simply to respond by laying a statement before Parliament. That underlines the hybrid nature of national planning statements. On the one hand, they are a statement of Government policy, but on the other, they are a planning policy guideline—and even if they are a statement of Government policy, they are a statement in the context of a wider palette of policies that can properly be the subject of a resolution before the House to define whether that policy is appropriate. That is an important element in these proceedings. I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification of whether my understanding of the process is accurate.
	Notwithstanding all that, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlines an important point about what happens at the end of a Select Committee's scrutiny. When the Planning Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stated:
	"In addition, if the Committee has recommended that a national policy statement raises issues which should be debated by Parliament as a whole, we will make available time in each House for a debate before we designate it."—[ Official Report, 27 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 14WS.]
	That was a clear commitment, and I should be grateful for, at the very least, a reinstatement of it today. However, I am not sure whether it is sufficient to guarantee debate on the Floor of the House.
	The motion should provide for such debate if a Select Committee reports that an issue requires it, rather than someone perhaps providing time for it. I have complete confidence in the bona fides of my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am not necessarily confident that, for all time, everyone will be in exactly the same position. The motion should be amended to ensure that the process of bringing documentation to the Floor of the House for guaranteed debate is followed through.
	I have concerns about how a substantive vote at the end of that process is to be interpreted, bearing in mind what I said about a resolution. However, today's debate has drawn attention to a lacuna in how the process might reach its logical conclusion. If we can get that right, we shall have a process that deals with how statements are presented to the House and how they interact with the planning process, and that ensures that proper scrutiny and the voice of the House are taken fully into account.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move,
	That the Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 505), dated 26 February 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 March, be revoked.
	It is a pleasure to be supported by so many staunch supporters of the BBC on the Conservative Benches.
	The Communications (Television Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 came into force on 1 April. They increase the cost of a black and white television licence by £1 to £48, which may or may not trouble the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington) who, we learned today, has had the same black and white television for 31 years, to his credit. The regulations increase the price of a colour TV licence from £139.50 to £142.50.
	Why have we called this debate over a £3 increase in the licence fee? We have done so partly because of the MP expenses issue that has engulfed the House over the past two weeks. It has shown that the public are justifiably angry about the misuse of their money, whether in small sums or large, which has reminded the House to respect the taxpayers who pay our salaries. The same surely applies to all publicly funded organisations, including the BBC.
	We have called for the debate also partly because the economic situation has changed beyond recognition since January 2007, when the current licence fee settlement was made. With 2.2 million people unemployed and many people facing dire personal financial circumstances, it is surely right to ask whether an increase that may have seemed reasonable in 2007 is still justified.
	We should also put the rise in context. In 1997, the licence fee was £91.50. Since then, it has increased by 56 per cent.—almost double the retail prices index rate of inflation. When the BBC's commercial rivals are struggling, sometimes for their very existence, licence fee payers have been treating the BBC incredibly generously.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend does a very good job of developing my argument for me. I shall continue if I may, but he is absolutely right and his point is important one, because the 2007 settlement was based on some key assumptions about the broadcasting market. The first was about the rate of inflation. That year, RPI inflation was 4.3 per cent., and as hon. Members may recall, that was the year in which the Governor of the Bank of England had to send a letter to the Chancellor, apologising for the fact that he had overshot his target. It was also the year in which there was an assumption that, as the commercial broadcasting market grew, the BBC would need to keep up. Both assumptions must be radically re-examined.
	Yesterday, RPI inflation fell to minus 1.2 per cent., the steepest fall since 1948. That means that programme inflation, the cost of buying and commissioning programmes, is also falling, and with Channel 4's revenues down 18 per cent. and ITV's revenues down 19 per cent. in the first part of this year, there is less competition to buy and commission programmes. The traditional parity between licence fee revenue and the revenue that goes to commercial broadcasters funded by advertising has been lost. Last year, there was a broad equivalence between the two sums of money, but this year it is expected that licence fee revenue will amount to £500 million more than the entire sum received by all the commercial broadcasters funded by advertising put together.

Evan Harris: With regard to the Jonathan Ross-Russell Brand incident—I make no defence of that escapade—will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposal is in no way a means of punishing the BBC for testing the boundaries test of taste, as with "Jerry Springer: The Opera", and that it is vital that the BBC should perceive no threat from politicians about its willingness to take chances in the creative industries even if it sometimes gets it wrong?

William Cash: Did the Secretary of State hear a fascinating item on the "Today" programme this morning in which Sarah Montague asked the chairman of the BBC trust some extremely relevant questions about the BBC's pay, allowances and expenses and the rest? Did he hear the chairman's replies, and what did he think about them?

Don Foster: For once, I am delighted to follow the Secretary of State.
	In my view, the Tory proposal is a dangerous, badly timed and, frankly, pathetic gimmick. Although, as the Secretary of State has said, the BBC is rightly the envy of the world, the whole House would acknowledge that it does not always get it right. I have been very critical of a number of its actions, which in recent times have included the aggressive approach to licence fee collection, the slow reaction of management over the Ross-Brand affair, the phone-in scandals, the excessive expenditure on taxis, aeroplanes and even Christmas parties, and the over-the-top payments to some presenters and so-called top talent. Despite that, however, I value the BBC and I value the values for which it stands.
	Introducing the debate, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said that it had come at a time when there was a huge debate about trust in politicians. He is right, but let me remind him that trust in the BBC has never been greater. A recent poll by the BBC Trust showed that 85 per cent. of the British people support the BBC, up from 70 per cent. two years ago. I think that we obtain phenomenally good value from the BBC. For 39p a day, licence-holding households receive 10 TV channels, some with high definition, 10 UK-wide radio stations, 46 national and regional radio services, interactive services on BBCi, the huge benefits of the iPlayer and, in bbc.co.uk, a website that gets 17.5 million unique hits every week. I think that that is pretty good value for money. The BBC also provides high-quality, UK-produced, impartial broadcast content. I believe that it is vital to our democracy, to our sense of national identity, and to the success of our creative industries.
	Last night, in an interesting and somewhat provocative speech, the chairman of the BBC Trust, Sir Michael Lyons, argued that the way in which people think about the BBC is different from the way in which they think about commodities. The approach of the hon. Member for South-West Surrey seems to be that they just think about commodities, but they do not. As Sir Michael said, the British people see themselves as shareholders in the BBC, and therefore have a vested interest in its long-term future. The Tory proposal ignores that relationship, and crucially—as the Secretary of State said—it ignores the vital independence of the BBC from Government.
	As we have heard, the planned increase is part of a six-year settlement. Not only is the length of that settlement critical to the BBC's ability to plan ahead, but it underpins the BBC's editorial independence. Voting against the order and for the Tory proposal would set a dangerous precedent whereby the licence fee settlement could be redrawn each year, year on year—as the Tories' leader has said—according to political whim. It would represent a fundamental and undesirable shift in the relationship between the BBC and Parliament. In short, the motion is highly dangerous, and prompts the question "Will the BBC, and especially its independence, be safe in Conservative hands?"
	It is no wonder that, on Monday this week,  The Guardian quoted an unnamed Tory source as saying:
	"This could be the first meaningful salvo in what could be an explosive battle between a Conservative government and the BBC."
	In the same article, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, is quoted as saying that today's vote would "send a message" to the BBC. I look forward to hearing what message he thinks it will send.

John Whittingdale: We simply cannot ignore the environment in which the BBC is operating. That is not to say that the BBC does not do masses of things that are essential. However, my question is whether it needs £3.6 billion to do them. The BBC will always point to its comedy, drama, children's television, regional television and its religion, arts and education coverage. However, just because the BBC produced "Cranford", "Life in Cold Blood" or "Panorama" does not necessarily justify £3.6 billion. We have to ask whether we need all the channels that the BBC produces. BBC 3 has cost more than £500 million since it was set up, and to be honest I do not believe that the amount of product that has appeared on BBC 3 justifies that amount.
	The Secretary of State said that, "The BBC is there to provide content that the commercial sector would not". I entirely agree, but too often the BBC is providing content that looks very similar, if not wholly identical, to the content that the commercial sector provides. One has to ask whether it is justified for the BBC to go on paying the amount that it does in recruiting talent, top salaries, competing against commercial providers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey said, bidding against commercial television to acquire imported American television or to acquire Hollywood movies—in that case, the only beneficiaries are the Hollywood studios.
	The BBC does not need all the money it receives and, in the longer term, we need to be having a bigger debate necessarily about whether the BBC needs this amount or that amount, but about how we can sustain public service broadcasting in this country. There is a desperate crisis, and it is essential that the BBC is not left as the sole provider of public service broadcasting. If we are to sustain plurality, we must support commercial providers' continuing to provide public service programming. That might well need public support, and the obvious source for that is the licence fee.
	Is it more in the interests of the public and the viewing public in this country that we should go on sustaining BBC 3 or yet another American import, or should we be using that money to ensure that regional news does not just appear on the BBC but continues to be broadcast on ITV? Should there be other providers of children's programming outside the BBC? I welcome that debate, which Lord Carter is currently conducting, but those points have to be taken into account in this debate.
	There is very little time, but I want to finish by saying that I am profoundly disturbed by the comments made by the chairman of the BBC Trust, which was set up to be different from the board of governors. It was supposed to be an arm's length regulator, yet increasingly the chairman of the trust appears to be a champion of the BBC. When he suggests that it was somehow wrong for the Opposition to table this motion today, I have to say that he is straying on to political territory, which is very dangerous. He is also questioning the right of Parliament to determine the appropriate level of funding for the BBC. Of course Parliament should not interfere in the BBC's editorial independence, but debating the right amount of public money to go to the BBC is not interfering in editorial independence. It is a function of this House. If the chairman of the trust is suggesting that we should not be having this debate, I believe that he is in severe danger of overstepping the mark. I hope that he will think very carefully before continuing to make that argument.

Austin Mitchell: I do not want to embark on top-slicing, and neither does the National Union of Journalists or anyone with a real concern for public service broadcasting. Once top-slicing starts, it never stops. If it starts, we shall end up with what happened when I was in New Zealand. There, the licence fee was frozen and never increased, with the result that demand for commercials to be broadcast on the public service broadcasting channel kept on growing.
	The motion shows that today's Conservative party has very little noblesse and damn all oblige. The spirit of Willie Whitelaw, a man who was generous to the BBC and to public service broadcasting, is frankly dead. The Opposition are clearly obsessed with the cost of everything, but care little for a valued institution such as the BBC. When the Tory Front-Bench spokesman made his speech, he was surrounded by the boot boys of the Tory party, but most of them have left to do their boot work somewhere else. His was an intellectually feeble argument, and I am pleased to see that the Troy grandees are not participating in it.
	The BBC has its faults, and we could go on about them at length. I wish that I had been paid the sort of salary that Jonathan Ross gets—I used to present a programme called "24 Hours A Day" and I was worth it—but there is no need to go on about the BBC's faults, as all big organisations have them. Freezing or cutting the annual licence fee increase would secure only pathetic savings and, once we embarked on such a process, it would never stop. What would happen next year, or the year after? Another cut would be proposed.
	The motion shows that the Tory party is reneging on the licence fee, which has been the basis for the financing of public service television over the years. It has been ring-fenced to the BBC to provide quality in public broadcasting through culture programmes, children's programmes and regional services. The latter are very important in Yorkshire, and the BBC provides all the services from which ITV is pulling out. Are the Opposition arguing that, because ITV is cutting its public service obligations, we should force the BBC to do the same? Is that the essence of their argument—that, because ITV has had to make sacrifices, we should impose sacrifices on the BBC?
	That is totally illogical. The BBC is the bastion and guardian of public service television in this country. Are the Opposition suggesting that the money saved on the licence fee should go to ITV, or are they proposing these savage cuts just to make the BBC show the same sacrifice as ITV? If so, that argument is illogical.

William Cash: In an intervention on my party's Front-Bench spokesman, I raised the question of the BBC's accounts, for an important reason. A number of us, including the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, have raised the matter time and again. All the arguments that we heard, including those of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—he apparently got his arguments from the finance director of the BBC—and all the arguments about the extent to which we are talking about value for money ultimately depend on whether we can see the accounts. I do not need to repeat the point; if we do not have a proper method of referring the accounts to the Public Accounts Committee, a lot of the analysis in this debate is completely worthless, because we do not really know.
	In the same way, in-house productions are a cosy contractual arrangement, in many instances. That means that we do not really know whether they are sufficiently competitive with independent producers. I understand that "Panorama"—I hope that I am not wrong—has 40 programmes a year, of which 30 are in-house. If we are to have a thriving, competitive television and radio industry, it really does matter that we have accurate figures on how the various organisations operate in competition with one another.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about the "Today" programme and the remarks made by the chairman of the BBC Trust today. Sarah Montague performed an interesting and important service today. It is the first time I have heard a presenter on any BBC programme raise the question of pay, expenses and allowances in the BBC. I am afraid that the Minister did not deal with that point. He quoted what the chairman of the trust said. I heard what the chairman said, and I have it written down. He referred to the trustees' expenses, and, I think, to the board. He did not deal with the whole BBC employment structure; that is very important. I pay tribute to Sarah Montague for asking the questions that she did, and to the people who were no doubt behind her, who ensured not only that the questions were asked, but that she challenged the chairman of the trust when he tried to duck the issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford is right. I have written extensively to Mark Thompson and before that to Michael Grade, and I have had a series of meetings with directors-general over the past 10 or 12 years or more. I have written to them on many, many occasions about the way in which the BBC functions in terms of impartiality and bias, but I have never had the kind of replies that I would have expected.
	I believe in the BBC. It is an enormously important concept and it does an enormous amount of good, but it must operate on the basis of proper impartiality and accuracy. I am afraid that when one looks at the guidelines and then at the charter, it is evident that the guidelines are largely written for the benefit of getting the BBC to be able to control the conduct of editorial policy. The charter is much clearer. It refers to the question of impartiality in relation to public policy. Frequently we find ourselves caught up in the argument about whether the BBC is partial or impartial, according to party policy. That is not the issue. There are many subjects on which it is essential that the BBC should focus impartially on public policy, not merely party policy.
	We are about to move forward in an extensive and necessary reform of Parliament. Our Parliament has become a sham and it is essential that we address the problems ourselves. It is essential that we look at the BBC in the same light. It is important that the BBC provides from within itself the processes of regulation and self-regulation to ensure that we get what the BBC is capable of producing. It has been and it can be a first class organisation. I strongly believe that we need a system of enforcement of the BBC's obligations in relation to impartiality and inaccuracy. That is important for the BBC, as Sarah Montague made clear this morning. It is essential for the BBC as a whole, from the director-general downwards.
	There has been a severe lack of impartiality on a very big issue that is before the electorate—the European question. There has been a failure to address that— [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) says, the BBC has admitted that. I have the papers and correspondence that I have had with the BBC on that subject. It is important for this good reason: if we are to reform our Parliament, we must ensure that we return power where it belongs.
	The BBC has more power and influence in many respects—probably in most respects—than Parliament. The best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. The BBC's presenters and interviewers can ask questions and supplementaries, and they can do things that we cannot do, but we are elected. I am sure they understand that, but I wish they would demonstrate it rather more and make sure that they were as impartial as we believe they should be, and as we try to be in this place.

Andy Burnham: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments in conclusion. It has been an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made an excellent speech, and said two things with which I profoundly agree. He said that the BBC does not always get things right; he was right to say that, and it is right for it to be acknowledged. He also said that the BBC was not safe in Tory hands, and some of the views emanating from the Conservative Benches this afternoon made that point abundantly clear to anybody who cared to pay attention. The argument from those Members was that the rest of the media industry was under pressure, so the BBC should be under pressure—the quality of all the media must go down. That is an awful argument.
	There was a revealing moment when the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) was asked where the money would be found. The hon. Gentleman went over the line that we should never cross. He started saying that he would make cuts to the number of imported programmes; he said that he might offer up "The Wire". That was a very revealing moment about Tory meddling in the BBC.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), chair of the all-party BBC group, said that Tory policy on broadcasting is about scrapping impartiality in non-public service broadcasting news. It is also about allowing product placement. That strategy would see the quality of TV news and broadcasting go right downhill, and the public do not want that. The Tories' real policy is to cut the licence fee and top-slice—
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No s . 16(1)) and 17(2) and Order, 18 May) .
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Ben Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I well remember that meeting with the Minister. Of course, she was listening then, as I hope she will do tonight to the points that we are about to make.
	Max, the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), was given radiotherapy treatment at Clatterbridge prior to having a bone marrow transplant, and my hon. Friend—whom I am delighted to see here—is unstinting in his praise for the services provided there.
	I want to say a few words about the history, which illustrates the CCO's long-standing contribution to cancer services in Britain and to its locality. The centre's roots date back over a century to the Liverpool hospital for cancer and diseases of the skin, which was established in 1862. In 1882, the hospital moved to a new site and was renamed the Radium Institute. The first Roentgen ray apparatus was purchased in 1901 and the centre gradually developed into one of the two major radiotherapy centres in the north-west of England. The centre has been at Clatterbridge since the early 1950s. It has provided chemotherapy since 1970s, and CCO consultants were among the first to use multiple-drug chemotherapy. Today, the centre is thriving. It became a foundation trust hospital in 2006. Patient numbers are continually rising, with an average of 50 treated on each accelerator every day. Over 7,000 new patients are registered at the hospital each year.
	The CCO has received significant investment in recent years and is now one of the best-equipped radiotherapy centres in Britain. Facilities include nine linear accelerators, which I am going to call "linacs", a cobalt unit, superficial and orthovoltage X-ray machines, two simulators, two scanners, tomography simulators and so forth. The centre places great emphasis on research and development, regularly participating in national and international clinical trails. It employs 650 staff, most of whom live locally. Any diminution of services would thus be damaging not just to the hospital but to the community.
	In addition to the CCO's importance locally and to patients, it is recognised at national level as an outstanding NHS foundation trust. The Healthcare Commission rated it as excellent for quality and use of resources; and Monitor awarded the CCO green for governance and the provision of mandatory services, and gave it 5—the highest possible mark—for financial viability. It is in excellent financial shape.
	The quality of the treatment provided is matched by the service delivery record. There is no waiting time for chemotherapy at the CCO, with 66 per cent. delivered in outreach clinics—the highest rate in the country. That is important for the comfort and convenience of patients.

Ben Chapman: I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend, who takes a considerable and continuing interest in this subject. I will of course deal with the issue he raises as I develop my speech.
	Despite the CCO's impressive record in the provision of services and its importance locally and nationally, its future is to a degree under threat. The crux of the issue is that the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Network has put forward proposals for two satellite sites with linacs used in radiotherapy treatment. One satellite at Aintree, to be run as a CCO operation, has been agreed and no one contests that it will make an important contribution to providing accessible services for those living in and around Liverpool. However, I am not sure that the case has been made—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) may well disagree with me on this point—for a second satellite at the Royal Liverpool hospital, only five miles from Aintree. Let me say a little more about this.
	What are the reasons put forward in favour of these proposals? I am told that the two satellites are necessary to
	"meet demand for these services north of the River Mersey, as this area has some of the highest cancer death rates in the country".
	It is assumed that the establishment of a second satellite only five miles from the first will inevitably improve cancer outcomes in Liverpool and satisfy unmet demand. Clinical opinion at the CCO, however, states that patients from the region, and particularly in Liverpool, already receive the best treatments available and that the outcomes following diagnosis are similar to the national rate. In fact, the cancer reform strategy and the north-west cancer plan both argue that late diagnosis is the major contributing factor to poor cancer survival rates. There is no evidence to suggest that providing more non-surgical oncology services in a given area—in this case, in Liverpool city centre—would have a direct impact on survival rates. Improved screening programmes and public awareness campaigns are considered more likely to make a difference.
	A related argument presented in favour of a second satellite at the Royal is that Clatterbridge is too far away for patients in Liverpool and that more non-surgical oncology services, over and above those planned for Aintree, are necessary to improve access. I am not wholly convinced that cancer services cannot be accessed within a reasonable travel period by people in Liverpool, or more generally in the Cheshire and Merseyside area that the CCO covers. The cancer reform strategy recommends that travel times to services should not exceed 45 minutes, and 92 per cent. of CCO patients travel by car, ambulance or taxi and are able to obtain their treatments within that time—and in many cases more quickly. When the Aintree site is fully functioning, times will be even shorter.
	I want to emphasise that I accept the need for some non-surgical oncology services to be provided at a satellite in Liverpool. Along with the CCO and others involved, I very much support the establishment of the site at Aintree, which the CCO will provide. However, in that light, it is very difficult to see why we need a second site only five miles away. Projections suggest that the Aintree site will provide enough linacs to meet demand until 2017, so the second satellite will lead to overcapacity. Resources, which are always finite, will be hard pressed in the current economic climate; and it seems to me that overcapacity in Liverpool across the two sites will inevitably lead to a reduction of services at the CCO.
	Furthermore, even if it could be proved that there is a need for additional linacs beyond those already provided at the CCO and at the Aintree satellite, that would not necessarily provide an argument for the establishment of a second site. Surely it would be logical and cost-effective to increase the number of linacs at Aintree. I am told that the site could incorporate that, and it would prevent the expenditure involved in building another site.
	All this must be seen in the context of wider proposals for relocating the CCO to Liverpool, which are outlined in the Baker review. There is now general agreement that such a move, which would cost approximately £150 million, is inconceivable in the current economic climate, and it has been put on the back burner for at least the next five years. However, the chairman of Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority has confirmed that it is the "direction of travel" towards 2020.
	That bothers me. I challenge the fundamental assumption that the primary centre for non-surgical oncology services in the region should necessarily be in Liverpool. The existing Clatterbridge location is liked by patients, it ain't broke, it is a pleasant environment and, as I have said, it makes an important contribution to the local community. To move it would involve unnecessary and unwise expenditure, and in my view the idea has no obvious merit. Furthermore, proposals to move the centre seem to reflect a city-centric point of view. In fact, the CCO serves Cheshire and Merseyside and, as we have just heard, part of north Wales—Alyn and Deesside—and in that sense it is centrally located.
	The case that the Royal is a desirable location for these services rests on two central arguments. The first is that it would allow cancer services to be in close physical proximity to acute facilities. Although I see the merits of that argument, it does not necessarily provide a reason for the centre to be moved to Liverpool. The CCO is about 15 minutes' drive from Arrowe Park Hospital. It is also developing its own high-dependency unit to support patients who become acutely ill during their treatment at the centre.
	Secondly, it has been argued that the Royal location has advantages in terms of its academic links. However, the first satellite is to be built on the campus of the University Hospitals Aintree NHS Foundation Trust, which enjoys the same status as the Royal in terms of well-established academic links with Liverpool university. It seems to me that there is some confusion between academic status and proximity to the university itself. Moreover, the CCO is committed to developing its academic links and research. I am not convinced that the case for relocation at the Royal has been fully demonstrated either by the arguments about its acute facilities or by those about its academic links.
	As I have said, for the time being there are no clear plans for a full-scale relocation, but I fear that, in the short term, the creation of a second satellite may constitute a piecemeal development, which the Cancer Network, the Royal and PCTs hope will eventually lead to the establishment of a cancer centre at the Royal. The second satellite was originally suggested in the context of relocation of the whole centre, in the light of the Baker report. It does not make sense on its own merits. However, the Cancer Network and PCTs preferred to push on regardless, apparently on the primary basis that if the money was available, why not?
	This raises important question about how decisions are made about cancer services in the region. I am deeply concerned that PCTs, which have the power to determine the expenditure of large amounts of money—for instance, on the establishment of the proposed satellites—are, in my experience, only notionally accountable and often, I am afraid, profligate. They have not consulted me or other local Members of Parliament—or as far as I am aware, others—about the current round of proposals. If the PCTs are only notionally accountable, the Cancer Network is wholly unaccountable. Although it can only make recommendations rather than decisions, the PCTs do not appear to have probed its proposals sufficiently before endorsing them.
	There is a clear need for cancer services in the region to be viewed on a strategic basis. Resources must be allocated and services located in a logical and transparent way, based on an assessment of the current and future needs of all local people and on expert advice.
	I have described the CCO as a centre of excellence, and as such it is worth protecting for a number of reasons. It houses an impressive concentration of services and expertise, and continues to develop, improve and carry out research. As such, it is in a strong position to attract investment. In the current economic climate, funding will of course be scarce. Public money must be used even more wisely and cautiously than usual. If services are salami-sliced away from Clatterbridge with no clear plan, and cancer services in Merseyside are spread across multiple sites, no one institution in the area will draw the substantial funding that will be required in future years. Furthermore, if services are gradually moved from Clatterbridge, eroding the critical mass, the centre may will suffer a loss of confidence. It will fail to attract the best qualified staff, and it may start to decline.
	I suspect that the Minister will reply to me on the basis of drafts provided by the strategic health authority and the Cancer Network. However, in none of the correspondence that I have received from either of those organisations is there any evidence that they have taken account of the views of the CCO, or, indeed, of the concerns expressed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West. Can the Minister assure me that she will take account of them in her response, and may I tell her that although what is proposed is euphemistically presented merely as a long-term "direction of travel", in my view it is a wrong direction for which the case remains unproven and the costs very large?

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention because it gives us the opportunity to state again, as was made clear at our recent meeting in the Department of Health, that we should get involved in the process and that hon. Members must be involved in it. The cancer strategy and the cancer team were present at the meeting. I commend those present, as Members of Parliament for the area, to keep pushing for their constituents—that is what we expect them to do in this House—but at the same time they must have regard for local decision making, the way in which the consultation will be drawn up and how it is difficult at this moment for me to intervene in any way other than the way in which I am trying to help tonight.
	I understand that these proposals were agreed in spring 2008 by all eight commissioning primary care trust boards. Again, this will facilitate access to treatment for patients who endure some of the worst cancer outcomes in the country. We must commend PCTs in Cheshire and Merseyside for taking steps to address these issues. I must stress that these proposals concern providing additional radiotherapy services in the Merseyside area to meet the demand that I have outlined. I am assured that those additional services do not represent any removal of services from the Clatterbridge centre. In addition, I am informed there will be no job losses as a result of any of these proposals.

Ben Chapman: I apologise for intervening again, and I shall try not to do so again. Even if there is a case for transferring resource from Clatterbridge to Liverpool, such a move must reduce the critical mass at Clatterbridge. In any event, if such an approach is being taken, is there a case for having two facilities five miles apart—one at Aintree, where there is ample resource, and another elsewhere?

Ann Keen: The interventions are not a problem, because we have some time available to us. I know that this debate is important to hon. Members, and I welcome the opportunity to try to give reassurance wherever I can. Academic scientists and others are putting forward shocking figures to us that would lead hon. Members to develop their thoughts in that way.
	I must say again that I am assured that these additional services do not represent any removal of services from the Clatterbridge centre. This package of developments will, in fact, require significant increases in the oncology work force. Today's technology makes it possible to deliver most radiotherapy treatment close to where patients live. As typical radiotherapy treatments are delivered over a period of several days or weeks, it is beneficial to the patient to have to travel as little as possible to access this vital treatment—
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— (Mr. Roy.)